Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    January 24, 2014 12:00pm-12:31pm PST

12:00 pm
not just financially a large project but physically a large project to complete. this is a sobering momentous moment we have to deal with the faculties old and just doing something is it better than nothing. we can go into this individually commissioners but we have to hit the highlight we have a problem to fix >> why is this not a part of u sip program. >> it end in the san juan pipelines. that was a conscious decision years ago >> then - >> it wouldn't have changed the cost this is a joint facility so being a joint facility is costs
12:01 pm
50 percent from one side and 50 percent over the other side. so it's a significant issue under the current circumstances >> also at the time, we knew there were issues but it was estimated at one hundred and 55 million. that was in 2008, or 9 >> when you say catastrophic have you any projects when it fails. >> it's all a matter of probability and analysis you put together a team of engineers and look at the video inside the tunnel and all the test and collectively came to a period it's not going - well, it could fail today.
12:02 pm
that's interesting over time so over the next 20 years or so that probability will get into the, you know, 10s and 20s of failures which is significant. so we've put that one out there 0 that's significant we have to deal with it. the recommended actions on that as far as the alternatives of the analysis report not to fill in the drain tunnel to fill it in during the rafting season we need to fulfill our obligations to the rafters but on the important side is improving tunnel assess in the event of a failure we want to improve the
12:03 pm
access and the staging areas and improving access roads. there's a place to get into the tunnel so 0 getting in and out easily is something we may want to pursue regardless so we, deal with the problem if it occurs. again constructing the bypass tunnel and fix the tunnel above the fork after the dam is complete and filing. many mountain tunnel is an ear where there's leakage we've got a collection system to take out the river leakage and keep it out of the tunnel supply but to take care of that permanently. that's the story and we'll be
12:04 pm
looking hard at that. our next step from a project development point of view is moving to the i can't remember what c e r stands for. so we need to get the conceptual jerry to look at it critically and look at the options that have not been clear but believe me people have loobtd the option. on the weber front. those are liability for the bulk electric system. basically folks operated under voluntary practices until 2005 there were regulatory rules button in place. after 2005 it was changed and it was enacted for the canada
12:05 pm
blackout and, in fact, they've got reports over the last year or so. i'll call it the true story i don't know if it's true or not it's the tree branch in ohio that fell on a line and tripped on the system and there were event that tripped another system and set forth so southern canada was blacked out in 2004 hey, if one tree branch can do that what else. so congress enacted the policy to require the mandatory standards be regulated. in 2006 in the course the north american electric corporation was the electric organization at
12:06 pm
the time. in the course hearsay been previously been a coalition that voerl joined but all of a sudden they were designated a regular lowest in 2006. there was an agreement between them and the electric council approved in 2007. so this was when the first regulatory standards were approved and put into place. it is actually that blue area on the map. it's one of 8 recreational combitsz throughout the united states and canada. it's the largest one and the toughest one. the challenges we have on the negligence side basically are in 3 bins. one is a staeld increase in the
12:07 pm
regulatory load. it's similar to osha in that it effects auto aspects of work. that basically every scripture and even hand that touches the switch needs to be be it further resolved built into the regulatory system. we're regulated in 6 categories of entities where we're a generation owner and a generation owner and a transmission operator and a purchasing entity. there are other categories still to come we maybe regulated under each one has a set of regulations. this is a burden that is steadily ingress over time. the two specific things that
12:08 pm
come up are critical infrastructure protection and what was referenced as a in the course alert. on the critical infrastructure protection it's referred to as c i p go which is a unfortunate acronym. they approved in november 2013 they've become effective and they include cyber and security controls and standards effecting our operations. there's one hundred and 40 requirements within the 11 standards it's a detailed oriented system. it's the minimum level of protection for the sincere by
12:09 pm
that supports the grid. the documents is critically important. i did a different versions of the slide for something that wants to develop a training program and train people and document the training people and repeat. that's been the way the system goes her it's read and detail oriented. we're looking an audit where we are going to have 10 staff looking at this hetch hetchy operation that's the kind of regulatory system we have to deal with. in the critical infrastructure protection the efforts on that are to set up the system over the next two years. that includes purchasing of hardware and software to put in the measures to have and to
12:10 pm
demonstrate to week to week and in the course we have the critical system in place. the cost for the next two years are 4.8 multijust for this element with ongoing costs to keep is implemented over time. this is a big deal. us in the industry. we've been talking about this for wait water but those don't touch people liquor the electric industry does this is the prime target of those protections. second thing related to transition clearance. a in the course alert you can google it, it's where in the course informs you have things in 3 categories how security threats you can't talk about but
12:11 pm
kind of the memoranda level this which is good practices to be followed by everybody and third is the information sharing. so nicole this in the course alert in 2010 was done because in the course recognized a problem because there wasn't a sufficient line clearance which resulted in a problem. so they requested the facility owners for desperation and come up with a plan to remedial them within one year of discovery. our lines have been reported about a year wagner ago to in the course. we've used the design standard of a general specific regulation relate to the system above the ground and anything that motive be there and the national
12:12 pm
electrical safety code. we found about 3 hundred discrepancies & some of those things are built so what the system and some things are afraid and either way those are problems we need to deal with. the projection of the discrepancies is $30 million. we're looking at that as how can we accomplish that and again 90 in our fiscal situation should we do it in 5 or 10 years. we present a plan to in the course and here's our plan for the remedication of discretion. we need to got rid of and say this is what we're doing and this is why it's reasonable. 15 years is a long time but it's
12:13 pm
the change we have to deal with on this front. so those are the highlights the operation side is flat and on the negligence and week to week front we have to deal with. i'll turn it over to todd to wrap up. he handles solutions. >> hopefully tie you have volumes and volumes of information. >> yeah. but it simplifies to one slide. i'll recap the slide that we could switch to the morpt. so assistant general manager
12:14 pm
went through the budget so in the binder they've recapped for the tab one and two it's the budget summary and the operating budget and talked about the highlight of the capital budget. so, now we'll quickly walk to the capital plan if the 10 years and the financial plan that is the next 10 years and that will include our solutions to consider. so behind tab 4 in our fwierndz you want to follow along the overall summary for hetch hetchy is $606 million and that is two things the increase in the mountain and tunnel and the project mentioned earlier today. the shortfall on the power side
12:15 pm
and that shaufl specifically is on the cliff we don't have enough identified solutions yet to solve all of the projected need in particular for hetch hetchy power. the largest single item is the mountain tunnel rehab and bypass that richie talked about that were i can see further down the page where we could seem water bonds but even with the most assumptions the max out of the power bonds there's not enough capacity identified. the summary is done in a 10 year summary showing the investments in street lights and this illusion shows the entire
12:16 pm
$1.4 billion and you'll note two thirds of it is related to customer support and a 3rd of it relates to hetch hetchy water. a two year illusion is the capital budget on page 5 as well as the total 10 year. and some highlights of that are increases in street lights been $29 million plus another one hundred and 35 approximately in new proposals for street lights which is the consolidation of pg&e owned street lights and acquiring those by the city and efficiency, however, not anywhere where the level is where we want them to be. the other key summaries for water were discussed by a.m.
12:17 pm
richie. the new projects are summarized on slide 8. you can see in relation to hetch hetchy power approximately $135 million of street light related activity eaten some additional need at the alice grifbt and a candle stick point. so sometimes, the new customers need up front capital investment so we have to count the new expenditures and sometimes the new expenditures is up front investments in the case of candle stick point they've over $99 million so the revenues come in over time then. the 10 year capital plan is
12:18 pm
summarized on page 9 shoig the shortfall but transitioning to slide 5 how to pay for the capital needs and budget and what does that mean for rate pairs and how to keep it forcible. the slides i've mentioned it one behind stab 5 to summarize the new expenditures they're in red at the took up of the package. there are 3 reasons for pg&e about $24 million for the yearly manual costs that are new because of the transition and distribution charges and the elimination of the power bank and also additional proposed street light increases as pg&e has fidelity within the puc their generate case that
12:19 pm
assumptions rate increases that we pay for for the benefit of all san franciscans. the weshg richie talked about. that means bh about $6 million a year and mountain tunnel the waterside it funded through water rates if we could figure out how to balance that and that's what is one of the single contributor. you see the check marks to the right. we've assumed the green light where you've given us approval on treasure island and hunter's point and alice griffith and a upgrades for the riverbank. we're assessing hunter's point
12:20 pm
and the warriors stadium and the seawall lot and sf hope sites. that leaves us with difficult choices for the general fund paying higher rates to get to cost would be $20 million a year. if we concluded the new pg&e rates that would be 27 $28 million a year and if pg&e paid $0.40 for the utilities that's $28 million a year and so have some of the street light consolidation just pause on that for a moment. if we opportunity $100 million for the geofunds that's the prosperity tax bill would be $120 more a year.
12:21 pm
the only other place we use geobonds is for the fire desperation system that like street lights benefit ail san franciscans. the use of refers you hear about and we're meeting the reserves. we have to look at all the unspent money to all projects we could fro up some refers there. that leaves us with an unpleasant opportunity as well as mentioned looking at others operating cuts all costs including staff. i do want to take a moment and pause on slide 2. a year ago when you adapted the capital plan you prudently adapted the plan that mountain tunnel was a water project.
12:22 pm
it's not move forward from water quality to catastrophic center. when you adapted the financial plan we didn't have the projected case for pg&e nor the heightened additional expenses on the transition and disbruks buttock nor what the would be so those 3 pieces of addressed information are material and basically have created that new cliff when a year ago you didn't have. in fact, the black line shows the receivers and the how it was meeting it. fast-forward that to today and you'll see based on the new expenses on slow down one the blue line that goes into the
12:23 pm
negative material which is the magnitude of the fix we have 80 do. the green part on slide one, if we turn on cost of service from the general recovery fund if we turn on cost of service for the street lights from the general fund if we assume the consolidation those will solve the problem but still further adjustments or cutting will be noted on the capital plan. the rest of the information is the detailed sumgsdz which you know; right well, the same format was used in the past. i want to point out slide 6 which has a red circle on it. this is one where if you look at the next 10 years you'll see
12:24 pm
lark or large negative numbers. the first two years are balanced but this is a concern for you that our fund balance refers would be down to $8 million. or about 4 percent so in order to have gotten back to the refer plan in year two we have to figure out in this two year budget to trim $19 million of costs or fro up projects of the closed amount or other operating cuts are that's in the spirit of the general manager wanted to come back and talk about how we're doing and show you how close we are for refers >> commissioner torres. >> how much do we have in refer. >> $46 million.
12:25 pm
>> that's it. >> yep. the good ole days for hetch hetchy we really noted to spend those investments >> other than cutting staff and operations how do you cigarette suggest to make up. the shortfall >> we'll continue the negotiations for the enter connection agreement that could go a long way for serviced like street lights that benefit all san franciscans. and also to look at the category of new customers that we haven't summoned the park merry ted sedate and we'll continue to look at quite frankly every
12:26 pm
possibility. no one will solve the promise itself >> so the scenario is based on a drought situation down the road what are the variables or critically criteria that's led you to this. >> the projects here in the plan also assume immediate hydro year. in the last 90 we've having had dry years but this 10 years assumes the modem. so to the degree we have a drought and if it's a multi year drought we're looking at 8 or $9 million a year >> so what factors reduce the $19 milli $19 milli $19 milli $19 million deficit.
12:27 pm
>> whether it's open the negotiating table or the mayor to consider the generation bond it sits with us. >> so the first option my very well be to dip into the reserve fund. >> would duo we don't want to wait we want to come up to you sooner. >> thank you. >> so commissioner torres asked before the rim foyer. we've been able to satisfy the emergency repairs for the country staff in particular and we've lights started to get some reimbursements so in concurrence with the mayor's office and other we've reported that and we're starting to see those
12:28 pm
recoveries and as we see the recoveries we'll replace and put that back to the original costs. we have already received some insurance precedes and if not every other day talking with fema and both the governors office and fema have been critically good to work with. we're getting ready to file one our of our first claims so in summary we've got insurance recoveries and state recoveries and fema and both public assistance and hazard application filed for facilities that were not damaged so we've tried to put in an application every place that we could. what that means is at the end of the day our $56 million of damage that we would anticipate it be on the hook for is 6 and
12:29 pm
quarter part of the fema reimbursements so we'll look to reserve to cover that. with that, that's all we have today we're happy to answer any answers >> commissioner moran. >> thank you. >> two things. first of all, i appreciate your north this out the way you have. the 3 hundred and some odd pages. two things. if looks as to we're going to prop to change the business model for stoplights. there's a lot of pieces of that. the acquisition of pg&e lights and charging for the power we
12:30 pm
use. i'd like to see something that sdusz duces that change in business model from where we wish to where we're going and specifically where the acquisition fits. as part of it is changing the funding and an expansion of admission. i want to know how much that expansion of admission is costing us. and why we think that's a good idea >> so we would definitely come back and do a presentation. i think some of the reasons that we role looked at it is that as you knows we own a large portion of the street lights. we want to save a lot of energy costs. the problem
left
right